Am i the only one who could change the name of the topic to Marvels Agents of SHIELD and not notice much diference in the kind of many of the complaints this movie is getting compared to that tv show?

Not a fan of that show. To try to compare the two mediums is not even remotely transitive. There are so many more barriers they are dealing with in the story telling on network television, not to mention budget.

Not a fan of that show. To try to compare the two mediums is not even remotely transitive. There are so many more barriers they are dealing with in the story telling on network television, not to mention budget.

Im just speaking about some of the complaints being very similar. Bad placed humor doesnt need a special budget. Never compared them.

I'm hoping thats the case with me, IM3 was the first MCU movie which got worse with more more viewings, and Thor 2 has similar problems to that movie, so I hope my Thor 2 rating doesnt go down with another viewing. Should be seeing it again this week sometime.

I'm starting to sweat because I'm with you when it comes to Iron Man Three.

Finally seen the movie, and it was indeed better than the first. People saying that this film had too much comedy are crazy. There were not that many moments in the film. However, the only scenes I wish were removed were the ones after Frigga and Loki.

I will say this about the comedy, as much as I love Kat Dennings, she was borderline annoying at times in this film.

Don't say that. I liked her in the first. Didn't need to be in the film but I wasn't annoyed she was there. She had fun moments...but I could see why some might have a problem with her in that first film.

Also, now that we know that this film is doing okay financially, I think Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings shouldn't be in the next one. IMO, a Thor film won't be truly great until they cut ties with all of the earth scenes.

This film is just not very good,but hey whatever. People will say it's a "fun" movie. So I guess that means it's good? This movie actually regressed from the 1st film. Yikes

I'm 29 so I'm not actually amused by an astrophysicist streaking near stonehenge, or saying that he concentrates better in his underwear.

However, there were a lot of kids in the movie theatres, boys aged 6-12. They found these scenes funny, as 04nbod says people laughed in the theatre when there was the streaking near stonehenge, the same way I liked the Spawn movie when I was 13, I remember liking it a lot, it also has an underwear scene. There is something to be said for a movie that connects to boys aged 6-12, and yes that does make it a good movie in a very real sense. It's very important to appeal to kids, it's a big deal.

I had trouble following Thor's dialogue. In contrast to Rush (another movie with the same actor this year), where Hemsworth isn't making a stupid voice and I could understand everything he said, I would have benefited from subtitles. It's the first time I've ever had trouble following a lead actor's speaking in a comic book movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeeKay

You don't even know the name of the villain.

The villain was poorly developed, I'm pretty sure he had less screen time than Loki.

Those of us who have not heard of him prior to watching this movie are unlikely to remember him down the road. He is not like the Joker or Loki or Bane. He's more like parallax in the green lantern movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmc

I will say this about the comedy, as much as I love Kat Dennings, she was borderline annoying at times in this film.

The villain was poorly developed, I'm pretty sure he had less screen time than Loki.

Those of us who have not heard of him prior to watching this movie are unlikely to remember him down the road. He is not like the Joker or Loki or Bane. He's more like parallax in the green lantern movie.

I'll agree that he was a bit underdeveloped but he far from parallex from Green lantern, that's an exagerration. I actually strongly disagree with that.

I had trouble following Thor's dialogue. In contrast to Rush (another movie with the same actor this year), where Hemsworth isn't making a stupid voice and I could understand everything he said, I would have benefited from subtitles. It's the first time I've ever had trouble following a lead actor's speaking in a comic book movie.

I really liked Rush but Hemsworth's accent there was all over the shop. I had no problem at all understanding him in TDW and not quite sure how you considered his TDW voice stupid if you had no problems with his Rush accent.

Hmm, it was OK. I wouldn't say the humor was too much but just misplaced. I loved the first Thor as one of the few. It had a lot of heart and I liked that. This movie showed more of Asgard but it wasn't exciting enough because of the misplaced humor. When the stakes are high and the fate of the universe depends on it I don't appreciate the joking.

Gonna catch a lot of flack for this but I would say that the superhero movie to ironically have the best use of humor is the Dark Knight trilogy. Fancy that, dark, brooding Batman does humor the best.

__________________

You're a Lurker, I'm a Long Time Poster. When the flamewar starts, and it will, you'll cut 'n run

Finally seen the movie, and it was indeed better than the first. People saying that this film had too much comedy are crazy. There were not that many moments in the film. However, the only scenes I wish were removed were the ones after Frigga and Loki.

IA completely. I just saw it and I don't think the audience I was with laughed out loud more than 5-6 times.

I do think editing is a problem and the movie could have used a good 15-20 more minutes. Sif and TW3 were shown more and in a tougher light in the first film IMO. This one they seriously could have been just guards and the same purpose would have been served.

I do think the only time Loki is ever 100% honest is when he's talking to Odin.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

I knew in the first scenes they shared, when Loki was in chains that his biggest problem is Thor being king. He is riddled with jealousy. He even mentions something about what he could so with Thor's blood in his veins. Although I was spoiled with his fake death, you could see a mile away what his ultimate goal was/is. He wants a throne but even more than that, he wants Thor NOT to have it.

I only remember parallax because after watching the green lantern I spent time on wikipedia and elsewhere wondering how such a terrible movie could be made. Otherwise I would not remember him. I can't remember the name of the ugly guy from that movie who was the secondary villain.

Similarly, I only remember Red Skull because I already knew the character from the brilliant 1990s spider man cartoon.

Malakeith and the dark elves were very poorly developed in Thor 2, I can't expect many people remembering them unless they are already familiar with the mythology.

Gonna catch a lot of flack for this but I would say that the superhero movie to ironically have the best use of humor is the Dark Knight trilogy. Fancy that, dark, brooding Batman does humor the best.

I agree.

In the third batman movie, the dark knight rises, when batman speaks to catwoman on top of a roof, she disappears and he can't find her, and then he says in his batman voice "so that's what that feels like". It is the funniest line in any comic book movie for me. It's an earned joke and it fits the scene rather than taking away from it.

There were a few funny moments in Thor 2. I liked a lot of the banter between Loki and Thor when they were escaping from Asgard. It made sense that Loki would trash talk in that situation.